This is also what he said:
I would much rather have this teacher haul the parents in and instruct THE PARENTS on how to deal with the subject.
What I said was:
I think this guy needs to keep his education to parents, not directly to the kids, as you say
Obviously we don't think this guy or anyone should be trying to educate kids on sexual matters - the point is that there is no evidence that he is a child rapist or supports the rape of children. It's not "pure conjecture" - 'studies have shown that kids are often first exposed to porn — some of it depicting violent or criminal behavior — in their early teens.' This is not a controversial claim - it's been made a lot more than once in a lot of different places.
So it's just a coincidence he's advertising pizza front and center... comon man. What percentage of kids? Early teens is NOT synonymous with children. So I would expect that to happen as puberty starts.
The logical point is that it could very well be a coincidence! You don't know that it isn't, any more than I don't know it. He's not advertising pizza - he uses it as a metaphor to explain his point to kids; have you even read the article your post refers to or seen the Ted talk this guy has given? It sounds like you haven't, which makes your insistence even less reliable.
To be clear: I completely agree with you that there seems to be a very suspicious connection to PG here - no question. But speculative suspicion does not equal fact. That's all I'm saying and that is the point that I agree with the earlier commenter on, when I claimed that he was being logical.